The Problem with "Facts" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14887424
I hate the FACTS-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

I've always preferred rhetoric over facts as a way of "proving" an argument. Many people here at pofo have suggested that this means that my methodology is weak. But here are two quotes from two philosophers (one living, the other long gone) that show a marked hesitation to worship or even believe in facts.

Diderot wrote:You can divide facts into three types: the divine, the natural and man-made. The first belongs to theology; the second to philosophy and the third to history. All are equally open to question.


...

John Ralston Saul wrote:Facts are supposed to make truth out of a proposition. The trouble is that there are enough facts around to prove most things. They have become the comfort and prop of conventional wisdom; the music of rational technocracy; the justification for any sort of policy, particularly as advanced by special-interest groups, expert guilds and other modern corporations. Confused armies of contradictory facts struggle in growing darkness. Support ideological fantasies. Stuff bureaucratic briefing books.


...

That there are enough facts around "to prove most things" (Saul) shows the process of public relations and adversiting. They sift through a huge pile of "facts," and then carefully select those that confirm their own pre-created narrative.

Do you do this too? Do you scan lots of facts, and then select the ones that confirm what you emotionally believe to be true?

If you do, then you'll never find the truth. You're just trying to justify your emotional feelings about things (opinions) so that you can "win." The truth isn't about winning a competition to prove your emotions are the most rational.

(quotes taken from an article called Truth Decay)
#14887696
Rhetoric matters, but that's a different story.

The real problem with facts is people aren't born with video cameras out of their eyes, microphones out of their ears, or hooked up to networks of surveillance equipment to record everything going on. We're not born with time machines or teleportation devices to discover the truth when and where evidence has been destroyed either. We're also not born with the ability to access alternate timelines, so just because we have proof of something functioning in our world doesn't mean it's the only way things can function; evidence is spatial, but time is temporal. By definition, you can't have evidence of another connection between cause and effect. At best, you can have evidence of reiteration within our timeline, but reiteration doesn't cover all possibilities. It only covers those possibilities which are lucky enough to be reiterated.

Empiricism is utopian. Idealism is realistic. The fact of the matter is reality exists within time, and there's a difference between perspective and existence.
#14887698
Whether you need to provided evidence in an argument depends on the argument. If you declare something as a fact it can be challenged with asking for evidence as you claim it to be true. There is a phenomenon on here that people make things up because they 'think' it's true. This is especially true in regards to race and religion. So when this happens and you get challenged, if you don't provide evidence it's usually because you are chatting shit.

If you are arguing for your opinion on something you don't need evidence. It is an opinion after all. You might want to provide evidence to give your opinion some foundation to it, but nonetheless rhetoric is just as valid.
#14887699
I think one problem with "facts" right now is that you can contextualize them to say a lot of things they might not mean. The most common form of this is "time framing" where you only look within a certain time frame, or windowing.

For example, it's a fact that men make more money than women do but if you provide this fact in a vacuum, leaving out differences in the amount of time worked and the professions chosen, you get the impression that there are secret agents of the patriarchy everywhere which is probably not right.
#14887773
A scientist by training and profession, I've internalized its precepts. Facts are the pieces which we try to assemble to form an explanation which both includes them and, and this is important, demonstrates causality.

Facts are permanent. Explanations are always open to refutation by new facts.
#14888125
Dubayoo wrote:We're not born with time machines or teleportation devices to discover the truth when and where evidence has been destroyed either.

No, regular humans are not born with perfect recording equipment.

But large corporations and tyrannical government have millions of security cameras, bugging equipment, and these powerful institutions are constantly fighting to the "freedom" to bug all online behavior.

So "facts" are easily provided by powerful, controlling institutions. The slave masters know all the "facts" about their slaves.

Hong Wu wrote: The most common form of this is "time framing" where you only look within a certain time frame, or windowing.

This is the most common way to create a fake history. Example: the railways. When studying the construction of North American railways, we are treated to the heroism of the visionaries, and the results in increased trade in the 19th Century. But historians DON'T mention all the cultural genodides that made these railroads possible, nor do they mention that we abandoned our railways as soon as capitalism found out that cars would drain even more money from the average consumer-drone.

The history of the railways starts after the genocides and ends just before we abandon that toy and reach for the next one.

Likewise, Israel's "history" starts as the deserts all start blooming, but long after all the locals were ethnic-cleansed.

History becomes propaganda this way: all the truth and educational value is removed in order to promote products.

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]